War Metal Wiki talk:Projects/Tyrant/Achievements
Re:Initial proposal Roughly, I'd agree the proposal. But I have the following feedback: Architecture *"Move all Achievement pages to become subpages of Tyrant" **Since they are Tyrant Achievements, I'd suggest putting them under Tyrant/Achievements instead. That is, "''Tyrant/Achievements/''Achievement Name" I'd also suggest content of individual achievements stored into the individual dedicated pages, just like the Missions pages. Content *"It may be preferable to stay away from modifying font colors as has been done, as this can lead to problems should the theme and stylesheet of the Wiki change. If colors are to be changed, a CSS class should be created and stored with the other CSS customizations so that they are in one place, where they can be modified more easily when global theme changes are made." **Font colors were adopted because I can't distinguish bold text from unbolded text easily. I still don't want to use bold text outside links. So yeah, the headers will need a change. A new template called "TyrantAchievementHeader" has been installed into Limited Support, Enemy Misfire and Blight Support achievement pages to detail my suggestions on changing the headers. *'"Mission Grinding" and "Campaign" will be consolidated into "Mission Completion"' **Seeing that completing M144 leads to 980 mission victories minimum, I agree. *'"PvP Grinding" will become "Player Battle"' **If "Player Battle" needs to be installed, I would as well consolidate Loyalty-based, Tournament-based and Conditional PvP achievements into "Player Battle" as well, and make them all subcats of "Player Battle". I'd rather stick to "PvP Grinding", as it is possible to grind for PvP victories from the Arena. Hakdo 08:47, January 26, 2012 (UTC) : Those sound like good ideas. I'll have a look at the template you created as well as soon as I can. Slivicon 08:58, January 26, 2012 (UTC) Deck Tiers Come to think of it, three tiers don't look enough for me. Again, I'd use this list to split tiers: (cards of the rarest tier defines deck tier) *Tier 1: Decks that use cards from rarity tiers 1 to 4 Will consume lots of Bonds, the true hardcore Tyrant player *Tier 2: Decks that use cards from rarity tiers 5 to 8 Will consume Bonds, but only up to 275 per deck, still will need lots of cash, or luck from daily crates *Tier 3: Decks that use cards from rarity tiers 9 to 13 Will require very active playing *Tier 4: Decks that use more HW cards than rewarded Can still use a limited selection of cards from Faction Level Reward (up to Faction lv5, up to 2000 Loyalty) and Player Level Reward (up to Player lv75) *Tier 5: Decks that use more cards than rewarded from Gold and Enclave Packs For those who don't have big card pools *Tier 6: Decks with none of the above cards This goes to show that small card pools don't necessarily inhibit your ability to complete achievements, but will require true ingenuity to make Either way, use of cards that are rewarded from relevant achievements (for example, use of Elemental for Purist Annihilator) is strictly forbidden. Hakdo 13:27, February 5, 2012 (UTC) *I would suggest we stop at 5 tiers (grouped from your list). Many players recommend finishing the missions before trying achievements, plus players are bound to have purchased a number of gold packs along the way, so to avoid "tldr" with regards to tiers, let's bump off "Tier 6" for achievements. *I would also forbid the use of your "tier 1" rarity in the tier 1 group here. Those cards are so rare that I can't see them being considered "helpful" in suggested decks for achievements by very many visitors. *There's also going to need to be a move of that card accessiblity away from "talk" to the standards page if we're going to be enforcing it. *Also, when mentioning "Tiers" we should link to the group of tiers in question, so people know the definition. *Finally, the tiers may need links to lists of cards (and amounts) included in the tier to really spell it out for people (perhaps we need to find a different term for "rarity tier" and "grouped tier" to avoid confusion of the term "tier"; maybe "accessibility level" for each of the numbers and "tier" for grouping the numbers) Slivicon 23:28, February 5, 2012 (UTC)